Has Climate-change Alarmism Backfired?

Alarmist in chief

“I believe climate change is real,” Hillary Clinton asserted in her acceptance speech at this year’s Democratic National Convention, while Republican nominee Donald Trump did not mention the issue during his own speech at the Republican National Convention, although he has dismissed human-caused climate change as largely “a hoax.”

Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee, mostly accepted the claims of the alarmists. But now, after several years of outlandish doomsday scenarios pushed by those who argue, as does Clinton, that climate change is “real,” could this issue hurt her chances in November?

In the past several years, the gloomy predictions made by global warming alarmists have signally failed to come to pass. In 2006, Al Gore claimed that we were reaching the point of “no return” unless the world dramatically reduced greenhouse gases. In the movie based on Gore’s book, An Inconvenient Truth, James Hansen bluntly declared, “We have at most ten years — not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions.”

Rajendra Pachauri, chief of a United Nations climate panel, insisted that if action were not taken by 2012, it would be “too late” to save the planet. In one of the most ridiculous of the alarmists’ predictions, then-British Prime Minister Gordon Brown pronounced that the world only had 50 days to save the planet from global warming. That was in 2009.

The “inconvenient truth” for those who continue to push this belief, and for the austerity demanded by the theory’s advocates, is that it may have become a political albatross. Trump certainly is not afraid to directly challenge the entire global climate-change thesis, arguing that Clinton’s proposals are an “extreme, reckless anti-energy agenda,” adopted “to appease radical donors [who] will destroy millions of jobs and force millions more into abject poverty.”

In the 1960s and the 1970s, there was an 86-percent scientific consensus that the planet was cooling — dangerously so, leading perhaps to another Ice Age. During those years, 220 out of 264 scientific papers that were published backed the cooling thesis. Yet, global warming alarmists are now claiming that it is some sort of urban myth that scientists thought back then that there was a real possibility of another Ice Age. Interestingly, however, there was even talk at the time of setting off nuclear bombs at the northern polar ice caps to break up some of the ice!

Those who advocate increased governmental regulation of the economy to stop “global warming” have even ceased using that term, replacing it with “global climate change.” Thus, all events — whether warming or cooling, droughts, torrential downpours, or hurricanes, are said to “prove” their theory that human industrial activity is causing a radical change in the planet’s climate.

Related

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (6)

Amber

Politicians trying to distance themselves from the global warming con game
use weasel words now like “I believe in climate change “. This is the intellectual equivalent of standing up and announcing ” I believe babies poo . “

John Wilder

John Wilder

iT IS SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR CO2 TO BE A GREENHOUSE GAS. Google the specific gravity of CO2 and it will take you to numerous scientific sites all stating that is 1.52 or in other words a152% heavier than air. IT SINKS TO THE GROUND WHEN IT IS RELEASED, IT DOES NOT RISE INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.

Think about it, we have pour hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of CO2

Tez

Hi John,
I thought about it and think you must be mistaken, otherwise evertime we lied down we would breathe pure CO2 and die.
There must be other factors at play which ensure it mixes with the air, convection for example.

John Wilder

INTO THE AIR SINCE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. The scientists claim that we have 380 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere. I don’t accept that figure but let’s say for argument’s sake that it is right. Do you know what the fractional equivalent of that number is? It is 38/100,000ths of 1%. That is a trace amount by any objective standard. What is says is that the earth is in homeostasis because the trees are sucking it up faster than we can put it out.

BTW if we reduced CO2 we would simultaneously reduce the amount of O2 in the atmosphere by an equal amount. Newton’s Third Law of Physics says that: “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” I don’t want less O2 in our air, do you?

Get a daily digest of the day’s headlines

Recent Comments

Amber

If left wing pinko Saunders doesn’t like him he sounds like he has potential .
He looks like a guy with a bit of backbone and won’t be bullied by the Demo rat
whiners who have infiltrated the EPA .
Good luck Mr. Pruitt . …. hire security . When the looney tunes get desperate( and they are ) they go into ugly mode . Taking apart their $Trillion dollar con game is going to get them down right belligerent but who cares ? They did get about 1 % of the vote
after all . In other words the science fiction is settled in the minds of voters by about
99 % . The debate is over in their hot air world .
Drain away Mr. Pruitt the public backs you despite the shrill sound of whiners who just had their piggy bank broken .

Amber

The NASA data manipulators collectively don’t have an IQ over 38 . Bullshit merchants about to be out on their ass . Maybe Britain would like to hire NASA rejects .
Where oh where are Dicaprio and Gore going to get their alarmist propaganda ?
When is the much vaunted IPCC report coming out ? That’s right NEVER .
The jig is up they were played as useful idiots and are no longer required .
Did the IPCC hot pants smut writer ever beat those sexual harassment allegations ? Quality right through the organization .

Amber

Why would virtually no change to Antarctic ice in over 100 years be a surprise at all .
Whether it’s minus – 60 or minus – 58 certainly we know it is fricking cold and it is not about to thaw . Throw a few volcanos open below the surface and a part of it might
but if that is considered caused by climate change the science fiction is bigger than
we know .
The question is how much will the Antarctic grow by over the next 1000 years ?

Amirlach

JayPee

I’m willing to consider your argument, but I’m disturbed of your willing to give credence to the unproven and unfoundedly assumed presumption that CO2, CH4, and any other gasses that the extremist left hates are upon their dictum alone the mythical GREENHOUSE GASSES as they define them to be.

I ask you not to buy into their argument without the proof that they have never had.
They have always had conjecture, lies and hysteria and even a low percentage of consensus ( as if that means anything ).
But they have NEVER had proof of their mythical GREENHOUSE EFFECT ( as defined by the extremist left ).